RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY,GONDA vs. DCIT/ACIT (CENTRAL)-2, LUCKNOW

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

92,76,000/-. Thereafter, the said lease property was converted into freehold through registered deed on 24/10/2017. During the assessment proceeding of AY 2014-15, AO has referred the valuation of said property u/s 50C/142A in response to which Valuation Officer, Allahabad has estimated the FMV of lease property as on 04/10/2013 at Rs. 43,46,000/- against actual consideration

M/S JUPITER TRADELINKS PRIVATE LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. DY,. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-1, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2013-14 M/S Jupiter Tradelinks Private Vs. Dcit, Limited, Dobiriyal Complex Gole Central Circle-1, Lucknow Market Mahanagar, Lucknow Pan: Aaccj0525G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Akshay Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.08.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Lucknow Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 26.11.2024 Dismissing The Appeals Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Ao Dated 4.06.2019, Passed Under Section 271(1)(C). The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “1. The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Both Law & Facts Of The Case By Confirming The Penalty Of 2,20,41,900/- Levied By The Assessing Officer. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Has Failed To Appreciate That: A. The Appellant Has Neither Concealed The Particulars Of Its Income Nor Furnished Any Inaccurate Particulars Of Income; B. There Was No Failure On The Part Of The Appellant In Truly & Fully Disclosing All Material Facts C. Mere Disallowance Or Rejection Of The Claim Or Stand Taken By The Appellant Based On Reasonable Interpretation Of The Law Is Not Sufficient To Attract Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) 3. The Amount Of Penalty Confirmed By The Learned Cit(A) Is Invalid, Excessive & Unreasonable.”

u/s 271(1)(c) 3. The amount of penalty confirmed by the learned CIT(A) is invalid, excessive and unreasonable.” 1 A.Y. 2013-14 M/s Jupiter Tradelinks Pvt. Ltd. 2. The facts of the case are that the assessee company filed its return of income for the assessment year 2013-14, declaring a net income of Rs. 15,952/-. Subsequently

M/S AYODHYA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY(FORMERLY AYODHYA FAIZABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY),AYODHYA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

92,10,505/- being the balance in 'infrastructure development fund account'. Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the amount in the above statutory fund are specifically received by virtue of Government Order dt. 15.01.1998 and are meant for utilization in the development activities exclusively. Ld CIT(A) further failed to appreciate that the unutilized left over amount

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CC-2,, KANPUR vs. SHRI.MOHAMMAD ASFAND AKHTAR, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-2 V. Shri Mohammad Asfand Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Akhtar Allenganj, Kanpur-208001. Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar V. Dcit, Central Circle-Ii Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, 10/503, Allenganj, Kanpur- Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, 208001. Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

u/s 148 of the Act on the basis of survey carried out on assessee. In these two years, there is no issue of commission on sales and the only issue involved in these two years, the addition made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of same statement, which has been recorded u/s 133A of the Act. During assessment year

MOHD. ASFAND AKHTAR,KANPUR vs. DEPUTI COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CC-2, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-2 V. Shri Mohammad Asfand Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Akhtar Allenganj, Kanpur-208001. Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar V. Dcit, Central Circle-Ii Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, 10/503, Allenganj, Kanpur- Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, 208001. Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

u/s 148 of the Act on the basis of survey carried out on assessee. In these two years, there is no issue of commission on sales and the only issue involved in these two years, the addition made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of same statement, which has been recorded u/s 133A of the Act. During assessment year

NISHA FAZAL,GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR vs. ITO-4(3), KANPUR-01

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of IT Act, 1961\npassed the order is clear cut violation of settled principle of law\nand against the principle of natural justice.\n6.\nBecause the Id. AO issued notice u/s 142(1) in the correct\naddress of the Appellant i.e. from Kanpur to Noida through\nspeed post and fixing the hearing date

GOPAL JI MISHRA,LUCKNOW vs. ITO-6(5), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2013-14 Gopal Ji Mishra V. The Income Tax Officer 6(5) K-1218, Ashiana Lucknow - New Kanpur Road, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Akjpm8317M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 18 03 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 20 03 2025 O R D E R

u/s. 50C of the Act : Rs.25,92,873/- Net taxable income (rounded off) : Rs.48,08,630/- 2.1 The AO also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) and 271F of the Act, separately. 3

RACHNA VARYANI,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2011-12 Smt. Rachna Varyani V. The Income Tax Officer 117, R.N. Block Ward 2(3) Ratan Lal Nagar Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aaxpv4296Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Jitendra Kumar Yadav, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 23 04 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28 04 2025 O R D E R

92,500/- by Shri Bhupender Singh S/o Shri Agya Singh R/o 113/158, Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur through Power of Attorney holder, Shri Indra Kumar Talreja S/o Shri Tikam Das Talreja R/o 120/500A, Lajpat Nagar, Kanpur. The AO noted that the assessee has neither sold this property in her name and had thus not received the consideration as stated

VIJAY KUMAR GUPTA,SIDDHARTH NAGAR vs. ACIT, GONDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2017-18 Vijay Kumar Gupta V. The Acit Bewa Chauraha Gonda - New Dumariyaganj Siddharth Nagar Tan/Pan:Bmypg7642F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 05 05 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22 05 2025 O R D E R

penalty proceedings under section 270A(1) read with section 270A(9)(e) and 271 of the Act, separately. 3. Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. First Appellate Authority. Later on, the case of the assessee was migrated to NFAC, which dismissed the appeal of the assessee for the reason of non-compliance by the Assessee

M/S K.N.S. EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

92,469/ and same is stated in the Notes 2.4Forming Part of the Balance Sheet, hence the reasons are invalid and subsequent assessment is also invalid. (4) The Lower Authorities failed to appreciate that Cash Credit Account with Indusind Bank Account No. 650014040543 is an Old Bank Account and has always been shown in the Audited Balance Sheet also

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, KANPUR vs. M/S. HABIB TANNERY PRIVATE LIMITED, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Department stands dismissed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of Income V. M/S Habib Tannery Pvt. Ltd. Tax-6 15-B, 150 Ft. Road Kanpur Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aach4129E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri H. S. Usmani, Cit (Dr) O R D E R

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2.3 Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who partly allowed the appeal of the assessee, sustaining the addition of Rs.1,00,00,000/- and deleting the addition of Rs.3,81,68,114/-. 2.4 Now, the Revenue has approached this Tribunal challenging the impugned order

SRI SAINATH ASSOCIATES,LUCKNOW vs. DY.CIT-6, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

92,63,576/-, hence the salary ledger comprises the details of the total salary of Rs.7,15,28,277/- charged to the profit and loss account and also the assessee had already submitted EPF and ESIC challans along with their ledger to support claimed Salary expenses and also all the payments were made through banking channel and the details